High-Stakes Collaborative Testing: Why Not?

Levine, Ruth; Roman, Brenda; Carchedi, Lisa; Townsend, Mark H.; Cluver, Jeffrey S.; Frank, Julia B.; Morey, Oma; Haidet, Paul; Thompson, Britta M.

doi:10.1080/10401334.2017.1365719

Cited by 13 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In higher education, students are exposed to high levels of stress and anxiety revolving around their performance in assessments, such as quizzes, reports, and exams (Kapitanoff 2009, Dahlström 2012, Cantwell et al 2017, Johanns et al 2017, Levine et al 2017, Khansari and Coyne 2018. In this research, we apply gamification on the course element of assessment activities with a reward structure that connects them toward midterm and final exams to explore its effects on students' content knowledge and perceptions on satisfaction, experience, learning, and impact of teaching methods.…”

Section: Design Elements and The Course Choicementioning

confidence: 99%

The Dark Side of Narrow Gamification: Negative Impact of Assessment Gamification on Student Perceptions and Content Knowledge

Kwon

Özpolat

2021

INFORMS Transactions on Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We explored the effects of assessment gamification on students’ content knowledge and perceptions of satisfaction, course experience, learning, and impact of teaching techniques. The course preparation, attendance, quizzes, classroom activities, and team projects of an undergraduate operations and supply chain management course had game elements that accumulate to team advantages in the collaborative midterm and final exam. Interestingly, we found that gamifying assessment activities resulted in significantly lower content knowledge, satisfaction, and course experience. Difference in perceived learning was not significant. Also, team exam scores were significantly lower in the gamified group, whereas individual exam scores were not significantly different. This study contributes to the literature by providing empirical evidence that gamification in classroom may produce unintended consequences and implementing gamification restrictively to assessment is ineffective at best. Directions for further research are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Design Elements and The Course Choicementioning

confidence: 99%

The Dark Side of Narrow Gamification: Negative Impact of Assessment Gamification on Student Perceptions and Content Knowledge

Kwon

Özpolat

2021

INFORMS Transactions on Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…47 Other studies have focused on the broad positive experience for the individual, such as in a medical education psychiatry test where students learnt both about the subject matter and themselves through the interpersonal dynamics of the situation. 53 Other studies showed the clear advantage even for the strong students in the class, 38,54 but effect on stress and anxiety seem to have somewhat mixed outcomes. 54,55 Students also proposed suggestions to improve the two-stage examination.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Two‐stage examinations proved effective in geology, 51 in accounting, 52 and were shown to reduce the achievement gap in oceanography 47 . Other studies have focused on the broad positive experience for the individual, such as in a medical education psychiatry test where students learnt both about the subject matter and themselves through the interpersonal dynamics of the situation 53 . Other studies showed the clear advantage even for the strong students in the class, 38,54 but effect on stress and anxiety seem to have somewhat mixed outcomes 54,55 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A collaborative two‐stage examination in biomedical sciences: Positive impact on feedback and peer collaboration

Khong

Tanner

2020

Biochem Molecular Bio Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Examinations present an intensely focused opportunity for student learning yet opportunities for collaboration, communication, and feedbacks are often wasted. Two‐stage examinations where students first take examinations individually and then repeat the examination in small groups hold promise to address this issue. Here, we pilot and evaluate a two‐stage examination within an advanced undergraduate biomedical sciences course. We evaluated this innovation by triangulation of data from a questionnaire, semi‐structured student interviews, as well as, comparison of student grades between stages of examination across higher‐ and lower‐performing student groups. Quantitative data from the structured questionnaire showed that a majority of students perceived the collaborative stage of two‐stage examinations successful in promoting peer collaboration and communication. Furthermore, there was deepened conceptual understanding and provision of immediate feedback. The two‐stage examination did not, however, ameliorate students' test anxiety. Qualitative data from semi‐structured student interviews were consistent with quantitative data to show that a two‐stage examination provides positive impact particularly on immediate feedback, peer collaboration and communication but contributed to sustained test anxiety possibly due to negative experiences during group interactions. Both lower‐ and higher‐performing students showed improvement in the collaborative stage as compared to the preceding individual stage of two‐stage examination. This would suggest possible benefits of two‐stage examination for learning for all student abilities. This study discusses the advantages and pitfalls of two‐stage examinations for biomedical sciences and will guide informed recommendations for subsequent implementation elsewhere.

show abstract

“…We posit that this learning curve may not have been as remarkable had there not been the extrinsic motivation of an assessment - supported by comments like, “time pressure means we’re all willing to communicate effectively, so has greatly increase[d] this skill” (Additional file 2 ). Thirdly, collaborative testing may result in learning about oneself, others and interpersonal dynamics [ 34 ]. Many of the students’ comments around CSI improving understanding of others’ perspectives are relevant not only to patients but to team-members.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaborative case-based learning with programmatic team-based assessment: a novel methodology for developing advanced skills in early-years medical students

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Imperial College London launched a new, spiral undergraduate medical curriculum in September 2019. Clinical & Scientific Integrative cases (CSI) is an innovative, flagship module, which uses pioneering methodology to provide early-years learning that [1] is patient-centred, [2] integrates clinical and scientific curriculum content, [3] develops advanced team-work skills and [4] provides engaging, student-driven learning. These aims are designed to produce medical graduates equipped to excel in a modern healthcare environment. Methods CSI has adopted a novel educational approach which utilises contemporary digital resources to deliver a collaborative case-based learning (CBL) component, paired with a team-based learning (TBL) component that incorporates both learning and programmatic assessment. This paper serves to explore how first-year students experienced CSI in relation to its key aims, drawing upon quantitative and qualitative data from feedback surveys from CSI’s inaugural year. It provides a description and analysis of the module’s design, delivery, successes and challenges. Results Our findings indicate that CSI has been extremely well-received and that the majority of students agree that it met its aims. Survey outputs indicate success in integrating multiple elements of the curriculum, developing an early holistic approach towards patients, expediting the development of important team-working skills, and delivering authentic and challenging clinical problems, which our students found highly relevant. Challenges have included supporting students to adapt to a student-driven, deep learning approach. Conclusions First-year students appear to have adopted a patient-centred outlook, the ability to integrate knowledge from across the curriculum, an appreciation for other team members and the self-efficacy to collaboratively tackle challenging, authentic clinical problems. Ultimately, CSI’s innovative design is attractive and pertinent to the needs of modern medical students and ultimately, future doctors.

show abstract

High-Stakes Collaborative Testing: Why Not?

Cited by 13 publications

References 11 publications

The Dark Side of Narrow Gamification: Negative Impact of Assessment Gamification on Student Perceptions and Content Knowledge

The Dark Side of Narrow Gamification: Negative Impact of Assessment Gamification on Student Perceptions and Content Knowledge

A collaborative two‐stage examination in biomedical sciences: Positive impact on feedback and peer collaboration

Collaborative case-based learning with programmatic team-based assessment: a novel methodology for developing advanced skills in early-years medical students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About